Private patients are twice as likely to have pre-planned Caesarean sections as women whose treatment is publicly funded, according to new figures that lend support to the theory that some mothers are "too posh to push".
One in five (21%) private patients have a scheduled C-section, compared with just 8.9% of publicly funded ones, the study found.
Researchers examined 30,000 women who gave birth at a hospital in Ireland that caters for both private and public-funded patients between 2008 and 2011. Around one in five of the women paid for their treatment themselves.
The research, published in the journal BMJ Open, found that overall 34.4% of privately paying mothers had a C-section compared to 22.5% of public patients.
The "greatest disparity" noted between the mothers was the rates of scheduled C-sections, they found.
For first time mothers, 11.9% of private patients had pre-planned surgery compared with 4.6% of those whose care was paid for by the public purse.
"We found that private patients are more likely than public patients to have an operative vaginal delivery or a Caesarean section. The greatest disparity is for scheduled Caesarean sections, and twofold differences persist even after adjustment for sociodemographic, medical and obstetric factors.
"The differences observed in relation to operative deliveries were not explained by higher rates of medical or obstetrical complications among private patients."
Janine Stockdale, research fellow at the Royal College of Midwives said it may throw a spotlight on the high rates of Caesarean sections in western Europe.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article